Let me start with what the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) meant to Indonesia as it was
declared on Aug. 16, 1966, at the opening session of the 1966/1967 House of
Representatives by former president Soeharto in his role as chairman of the
presidium of the AMPERA Cabinet.
He declared at the session that
Indonesia would reinvigorate “Maphilindo in a broader environment in order to
be able to achieve a Southeast Asia cooperating in various fields of activity,
specifically in the fields of economics, technology and culture. If an
integrated Southeast Asia can be achieved, this area will be able to meet
challenges, intervention from outside, both economically and militarily.
A cooperative Southeast Asia, an
integrated Southeast Asia will be a very strong fortress and base to meet
imperialism and colonialism in whatever form and from whatever direction it may
come.”
It was the Konfrontasi policy
that taught us that proclaiming a “free and active foreign policy” and
co-designing the Asia-Africa conference and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the
Initiative of Five, as an attempt to thwart the Cold War, should be based on a
solid geopolitical environment in Indonesia’s immediate neighborhood, Southeast
Asia.
Maphilindo was too small as a
starter to design regional stability and security. That was the reason why
Soeharto broadened the regional base for creating a security zone around
Indonesia. Indonesia’s foreign policy was focused on its immediate neighborhood.
The NAM was then put on the back burner until 1992 when Jakarta hosted the 10th
NAM Summit.
The regional integration
Indonesia devised was to be achieved not through economic cooperation, but
primarily through political cooperation, by developing each nation’s national
resilience, so much so that collectively they would develop into regional
resilience, by both recognizing the national sovereignty of each nation and
non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.
These principles were later
formulated into the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) in Southeast Asia,
which became the legal basis for ASEAN’s cooperation (Chapter I, Article 2) and
remains sacrosanct in ASEAN’s principles of regional cooperation and developing
relations with the outside world.
ASEAN thus become not so much the
“cornerstone” of Indonesia’s foreign policy as its conceptual base: Southeast
Asia’s stability, security and prosperity become Indonesia’s core strategic
interests. An unstable, insecure Southeast Asia would have a direct impact on
Indonesia’s stability, security and prosperity.
Furthermore, Southeast Asia, in
Indonesian eyes, should be independent, capable of upholding its autonomy in
the rivalry between and competition of extra-regional powers. Indonesia’s response
to the Sino-US rivalry is a “hedging strategy”, specifically directed towards
the uncertainty in actions of both the US and China in the region.
TAC was the basis for
extra-regional countries to join the East Asia Summit inaugurated in Kuala
Lumpur in 2005 with ASEAN in the center, as the driving force. China, Japan and
South Korea became party to the treaty, joined by India, New Zealand and
Australia, and later the United States and Russia in 2011. The external
parties, and also China and the United States accept ASEAN’s centrality in this
equation as it accords with their strategic interests.
The new regional architecture
with ASEAN as the center is primarily intended to incorporate the big powers,
China and the United States of America, as well as India, Russia and Japan in
the design of a peaceful, surprise-free Asia-Pacific. A region devoid of
conflicts, including in the South China Sea. Lest we forget, Indonesia proposed
that India be added to the ASEAN plus three set up. As India’s addition alone
would have been too obvious as a political counterbalance to China, Indonesia
proposed that Australia and New Zealand be added to the set up to become the
ASEAN plus six configuration, which then became the East Asia Summit.
The full development of Indonesia’s
foreign policy is highly dependent on how stable ASEAN and its wider security
area are, encompassing the wider East Asia region. Hence, Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono’s government’s foreign policy vis-à-vis the extra-regional world, and
more specifically the great powers, Marty Natalegawa’s concept of “dynamic
equilibrium”, of urging, together with other ASEAN members, “peaceful
coexistence among the great powers in Asia” are expressions of Indonesia’s
attempts at developing Indonesia’s foreign policy in a stable, secure and
prosperous Southeast Asia or ASEAN.
An unstable and insecure
Southeast Asia will force the government to turn its attention inward and
reinstate solidarity in ASEAN and collectively face the external powers that
are considered to be the main cause of instability and insecurity. This is
Indonesia’s primary task in sustaining ASEAN’s solidarity and cooperation.
However, what happened in Phnom
Penh at the 2012 ASEAN Ministerial Meeting and the ASEAN Summit proved that
consolidating ASEAN’s cooperation and solidarity is still a huge task.
Indonesia’s initiative in finding a solution to the disharmony among the ASEAN
member states at the Phnom Penh meeting in July 2012 by producing the six-point
“consensus”, was more an act of firefighting rather than an act of affirming
ASEAN’s stance of rejecting non-interference, by any external power, in its
affairs in accordance with TAC.
Similarly, at the close of the
ASEAN summit in Phnom Penh on Nov. 18, 2012, when the summit chairman said that
there was an “agreement” not to internationalize the South China Sea issue,
this was challenged by the Philippines and Vietnam, as well as Brunei,
Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, by immediately submitting letters formally
disagreeing with this view, which forced the chairman to delete the reference,
ASEAN again acted as a firefighter.
Frustration with a member country
for not holding the ASEAN line has frequently occurred in ASEAN’s history. That
was clear from the very beginning. The difficulty of nurturing regional
cooperation through harmonizing each member nation’s interests with the
regional goals was already identified by Singapore’s first foreign minister, S.
Rajaratnam, in 1967, at ASEAN’s creation:
“We must think not only of our
national interests but posit them against regional interests: that is a new way
of thinking about our problems. And these are two different things and
sometimes they can conflict. Second, we must also accept the fact, if we are
really serious about it, that regional existence means painful adjustments to
those practices and thinking in our respective countries. We must make these
painful and difficult adjustments. If we are not going to do that, then
regionalism remains a utopia.”
His second reminder was much more
serious: “We want to ensure a stable Southeast Asia, not a balkanized Southeast
Asia.”
Hence, ASEAN’s tremendous task is
indeed to remain relevant and self-confident and resilient in the unfolding
power game in the wider region of East Asia. ASEAN is challenged with
“maintaining the centrality and proactive role of ASEAN as the primary driving
force in its relations and cooperation with its external partners in a regional
architecture that is open, transparent and inclusive,” as the ASEAN Charter
directs us.
And this should be the stance of
Indonesia’s foreign policy beyond 2014.
C.P.F. Luhulima
The writer is a senior researcher at the Center for Political Studies,
Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Jakarta.
Business & Investment Opportunities
Saigon Business Corporation Pte Ltd (SBC) is incorporated in Singapore since 1994. As Your Business Companion, we propose a range of services in Strategy, Investment and Management, focusing Health care and Life Science with expertise in ASEAN 's area. We are currently changing the platform of www.yourvietnamexpert.com, if any request, please, contact directly Dr Christian SIODMAK, business strategist, owner and CEO of SBC at christian.siodmak@gmail.com. Many thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment